Annnnnd now there's no way my pregnant wife is going to travel with me by air. Thanks security theater!
EDIT: I have TSA Pre via DHS/CBP Global Entry, as does my wife. There should be no reason for us to go through a body scanner if the TSA and DHS believe their background check and fingerprinting are effective.
I have to wear a "life sustaining medical device" (as printed on it and the 'airport' card I was given). The manufacturers are very, very explicit that the unit will be damaged by these scanners and that under no circumstances will they entertain any claim if it is. The old-fashioned metal detector is OK for the brief exposure but will set it off and force a manual pat-down. The x-ray baggage scanner is also a total no-no (but given it's implanted, that would tend to involve me going through it too).
Opting out was practically encouraged last time I went via EWR - the woman doing the pat-downs seemed to be on training to do them, so they were funneling people to her rather than the scanners.
I see argument in some comments that the risk to a pregnant woman may not be so large (I have no idea), but there are many people with medical devices who could be seriously harmed by a mandatory policy.
If device manufacturers are so clear that the devices are not designed to be subjected to EMF from these scanners, will the TSA be replacing devices and compensating people ?
The security theater just got officially dangerous (ok, more dangerous than before).
>> There should be no reason for us to go through a body scanner if the TSA and DHS believe their background check and fingerprinting are effective.
The general concept of security in layers is perfectly reasonable because no measure can be 100% effective. Combining a few 99% effective measures can get you acceptably close. We do the same thing in cybersecurity.
That said, the TSA is still dumb because of how arbitrary and unfair the requirements can be.
Background checks ( of the TSA's depth ) don't reveal if a candidate is susceptible to blackmail or coercion, so physical checks are always a good idea.
After all it's not who you are but what you possess that constitutes a threat.
So what is the point of pre-"clearance"? Revenue, I suspect.
Independent of the general problem of security theater, are you actually concerned about electromagnetic-based scanning on pregnant women? All the ionizing radiation-based scanners were (somewhat ironically) moved to prisons about two years ago: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/banned-airport-full-body... Unless you're concerned about wi-fi and cellular signals affecting pregnancy, you probably don't need to stay up worrying about millimeter-wave scanners.
My best guess as to why they changed this procedure is not to increase security (since they know body scanners to be ineffective), but because so many people were opting out that it was increasing delays. I always opt out and notice they try to incentivize me by saying "We're really busy right now, it'll be a while". I always politely wait. Sadly, now that they have this as an option, I doubt I'll want to do much flying anymore.
The hassle of a 2 hour flight is no longer "cheaper" than a 7 hour drive. I didn't even think about flying this holiday... never even looked up the prices. I know it would be monetarily cheaper, but I can't abide the abuse.
At least the backscatter x-ray machines are gone, now replaced entirely in the US with millimeter-wave scanners.
Personally, I don't care if somebody's looking at my body on a computer monitor. However, I do care if I'm being exposed to extra ionizing radiation for no good reason. Which is why I always opted out of the x-ray machines, but don't really mind going through millimeter-wave ones.
(Obviously, other folks will feel very different about this. If your concern is privacy, the millimeter-wave machines aren't much of an improvement -- though I do believe most of the human elements of the system have been replaced with image recognition on newer versions.)
I would love to have a job where I got to try to break through all the TSA's nonsense security.
If I believed any of it was making us safer I'd happily comply, but the whole process is so ham-handed it's embarrassing.
I brought a small radio transceiver with some coils of wire through recently and the look on the agent's face when he removed it from my bag was "oh shit I've found an explosive device". He looked extremely relieved when I told him it was a radio (but didn't inspect it further), then he proceeded to lecture me about the importance of putting my toiletries into a zip lock bag (they were in a similarly sized see-through bag with a zipper)...
This seemed inevitable to me. There's officially nothing wrong with the scanners, right? Out-opters are just old fashioned, and they're just putting up with us for now until we die out, or they slowly but inevitably loosen the last fingers from our grip on our own dignity.
I've already been denied entrance into the secure area of an airport once a couple years ago, until I went through a scanner, because they found traces of some chemicals on me and/or my luggage. (Was probably from a campfire).
Or they had a melanoma like me and their doctor said that the aren't sure it's such a good idea (yes we are aware it's not radioactive, yes we are aware that flying itself is also dangerous but no reason to add more)
What's interesting is, flying out of SFO a few weeks ago, I was directed into a line with no body scanners and only a metal detector. I was also instructed to keep my laptop in my bag and my shoes on.
But there was a K9 unit tensa-barrier-ed off that everyone had to walk past.
That was probably the precheck lane. They send randos through it every once in a while. I'm not sure if it's supposed to be a sales pitch or if controlling the lines plays into it.
I have precheck and have never seen a dog there, but I've randomly gotten swabbed for explosives a few times.
TSA Pre is also no guarantee. With Pre, you normally proceed through a metal dectector. However, the metal detectors randomly alarm to force some passengers through the image scanner. You could previously opt-out at that point and receive a manual screening. With this policy change, you might additonally be compelled to go through the scanner.
It appears from the wording that you can still request an opt out, but that they can refuse:
"While passengers may generally decline AIT screening in favor of physical
screening, TSA may direct mandatory AIT screening for some passengers."
Because going through the body scanners prevented the mass shooting or Boston Bombing, right? If we just make airport security more invasive, we'll be safe, right? Wrong.
Security theater is a fool's game. We'd be better off adjusting our geopolitical and societal priorities (such as mental health care, among other things) so that people don't want to terrorize us-- which will never be completed, by the way. Violence is going to happen no matter what, so our task is harm reduction rather than feel-invasive-but-do-nothing measures a la TSA.
The PDF does not define what TSA Advanced Imaging Technologies are. It implies rather than defines that it is a x-Ray even though the image is a generic drawing of a person with a superimposed an icon what area should be searched.
The TSA doesn't use backscatter x-ray machines any more. They were all removed because the company that makes them (Rapiscan) couldn't figure out a way to mask the naked images.
Now they just use millimeter wave machines, which have the body outlines only. I really don't find this objectionable from a privacy standpoint. It it basically a better metal detector in that it detects non-metal objects, too, and shows the scanner exactly where they are on the body.
I have to get back to work so I just skimmed over this quickly, but I didn't see anything that supports the claim in the title. Anyone who has read the whole thing mind pointing it out?
ETA: I did see the part that everyone is quoting, but the title makes this sound like this will apply to everyone all the time and I don't think this document backs up that claim.
Not storing the images was the promise at the beginning. Thanks Obama for these scanners, by the way. IT was bad enough that Bush made the TSA, Obama made it worse.
I now feel somewhat smug over refusing to fly whatsoever since hearing about the body scanners. The security theater is indeed a serious issue, but if the body scanners are physically harmless (not certain about that), then I am not sure why I should be concerned. Perhaps those who are disfigured, have to carry around a colostomy bag, etc. have a good reason to not be seen naked for some bogus security theater, but I suspect that that matches relatively few people.
Don't get me wrong, I still think the body scanners are terrible and that the security theater is a problem. However, my reason for not flying is a moral one, namely that some people are being paid to look at the naked bodies of thousands of people throughout the day. Perhaps if the TSA could provably (1) match the sex of the scanner-operator with the person-to-be-scanned, (2) match homosexual operators with the opposite sex, and (3) prevent all images from being recorded, then I would consider flying again.
However, I can't trivially prove the second and third before entering the scanner, thus I see the body scanners as a reason for me to avoid flying altogether.
[+] [-] toomuchtodo|10 years ago|reply
EDIT: I have TSA Pre via DHS/CBP Global Entry, as does my wife. There should be no reason for us to go through a body scanner if the TSA and DHS believe their background check and fingerprinting are effective.
[+] [-] pascalmemories|10 years ago|reply
Opting out was practically encouraged last time I went via EWR - the woman doing the pat-downs seemed to be on training to do them, so they were funneling people to her rather than the scanners.
I see argument in some comments that the risk to a pregnant woman may not be so large (I have no idea), but there are many people with medical devices who could be seriously harmed by a mandatory policy.
If device manufacturers are so clear that the devices are not designed to be subjected to EMF from these scanners, will the TSA be replacing devices and compensating people ?
The security theater just got officially dangerous (ok, more dangerous than before).
[+] [-] TallGuyShort|10 years ago|reply
The general concept of security in layers is perfectly reasonable because no measure can be 100% effective. Combining a few 99% effective measures can get you acceptably close. We do the same thing in cybersecurity.
That said, the TSA is still dumb because of how arbitrary and unfair the requirements can be.
[+] [-] ljk|10 years ago|reply
/s
[+] [-] dingaling|10 years ago|reply
Background checks ( of the TSA's depth ) don't reveal if a candidate is susceptible to blackmail or coercion, so physical checks are always a good idea.
After all it's not who you are but what you possess that constitutes a threat.
So what is the point of pre-"clearance"? Revenue, I suspect.
[+] [-] mortenjorck|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] URSpider94|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mindslight|10 years ago|reply
So you've explicitly supported this totalitarian theatre. It's never too late to apologize.
[+] [-] ap3|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] darkpicnic|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jlgaddis|10 years ago|reply
"Ok, we're gonna have to call somebody over here."
"No problem."
"Well, you might be waiting a while."
"That's show I show up waaay early, I've got plenty of time."
I think it pisses them off, but I don't care. I don't think I've ever waited more than two or three minutes, anyways.
[+] [-] MCRed|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tjohns|10 years ago|reply
Personally, I don't care if somebody's looking at my body on a computer monitor. However, I do care if I'm being exposed to extra ionizing radiation for no good reason. Which is why I always opted out of the x-ray machines, but don't really mind going through millimeter-wave ones.
(Obviously, other folks will feel very different about this. If your concern is privacy, the millimeter-wave machines aren't much of an improvement -- though I do believe most of the human elements of the system have been replaced with image recognition on newer versions.)
[+] [-] grandalf|10 years ago|reply
If I believed any of it was making us safer I'd happily comply, but the whole process is so ham-handed it's embarrassing.
I brought a small radio transceiver with some coils of wire through recently and the look on the agent's face when he removed it from my bag was "oh shit I've found an explosive device". He looked extremely relieved when I told him it was a radio (but didn't inspect it further), then he proceeded to lecture me about the importance of putting my toiletries into a zip lock bag (they were in a similarly sized see-through bag with a zipper)...
[+] [-] CaptSpify|10 years ago|reply
It'd be fun if there was an actual potential to be caught. This? Not so much
[+] [-] orblivion|10 years ago|reply
I've already been denied entrance into the secure area of an airport once a couple years ago, until I went through a scanner, because they found traces of some chemicals on me and/or my luggage. (Was probably from a campfire).
[+] [-] 67726e|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ThomPete|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] warfangle|10 years ago|reply
But there was a K9 unit tensa-barrier-ed off that everyone had to walk past.
[+] [-] ryan-c|10 years ago|reply
I have precheck and have never seen a dog there, but I've randomly gotten swabbed for explosives a few times.
[+] [-] fancyketchup|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] asciimo|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] orblivion|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mentat|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] js2|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saryant|10 years ago|reply
Turns out you can call a TSA agent an idiot and nothing happens.
[+] [-] RA_Fisher|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] obeone|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jlgaddis|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pera|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gboudrias|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] astockwell|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thoreauway|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] alttab|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pyre|10 years ago|reply
"Look! It's a 'scanner' just like on Star Track! 'Bet they can detect anything with one of those!"
[+] [-] cryoshon|10 years ago|reply
Security theater is a fool's game. We'd be better off adjusting our geopolitical and societal priorities (such as mental health care, among other things) so that people don't want to terrorize us-- which will never be completed, by the way. Violence is going to happen no matter what, so our task is harm reduction rather than feel-invasive-but-do-nothing measures a la TSA.
[+] [-] SCAQTony|10 years ago|reply
Not okay.
[+] [-] afiedler|10 years ago|reply
Now they just use millimeter wave machines, which have the body outlines only. I really don't find this objectionable from a privacy standpoint. It it basically a better metal detector in that it detects non-metal objects, too, and shows the scanner exactly where they are on the body.
[+] [-] jlgaddis|10 years ago|reply
ETA: I did see the part that everyone is quoting, but the title makes this sound like this will apply to everyone all the time and I don't think this document backs up that claim.
[+] [-] mathgeek|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sbuttgereit|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gscott|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bradbeattie|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] schoen|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MCRed|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scrupulusalbion|10 years ago|reply
Don't get me wrong, I still think the body scanners are terrible and that the security theater is a problem. However, my reason for not flying is a moral one, namely that some people are being paid to look at the naked bodies of thousands of people throughout the day. Perhaps if the TSA could provably (1) match the sex of the scanner-operator with the person-to-be-scanned, (2) match homosexual operators with the opposite sex, and (3) prevent all images from being recorded, then I would consider flying again.
However, I can't trivially prove the second and third before entering the scanner, thus I see the body scanners as a reason for me to avoid flying altogether.
[+] [-] edwhitesell|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] littletimmy|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Overtonwindow|10 years ago|reply